Utah County projects multi‑million‑dollar shortfalls in first five‑year forecast; staff recommends truth‑in‑taxation review

Utah County finance staff presented the county's first rolling five‑year forecast at the commission meeting on June 19, warning that under current assumptions the general fund faces a shortfall of about $14,900,000 in 2025 that could deepen to roughly $18,000,000 in 2026.

Rudy, a county finance staff member presenting the model, said staff built the forecast from the adopted 2024 budget, excluded one‑time items, and layered in recurring costs and anticipated capital needs. "We're projecting a $14,900,000 deficit next year in '25," Rudy said, adding that staff would refine assumptions and provide an updated model within a week.

Why it matters: the forecast aggregates multiple pressures — volatile sales tax receipts, slower property tax growth, higher contract and vehicle replacement costs, rising salaries and benefits, and planned capital projects — and shows the county may need to consider revenue actions sooner than previously planned.

Key assumptions and ranges in the presentation included a wide sales‑tax projection range of about $51.3 million to nearly $57 million for the year, a roughly $6 million spread staff called a major source of uncertainty, and an initial property‑tax growth assumption of 5% that several commissioners said appeared optimistic. Rod Mann, who introduced the review, said the forecast also accounts for CIP recapitalization for facility replacement and possible bonding needs for large capital projects such as a new Public Works building.

Commissioners pressed staff to revise several assumptions and to show fund‑balance and cash‑flow timing. Commissioner Gardner asked staff to confirm which programs currently funded with federal American Rescue Plan Act dollars would roll back to the general fund when those grants expire and to annualize those costs in the forecast. Several commissioners said they preferred a more conservative property‑tax growth assumption closer to 3–3.5% rather than 5% over the five‑year window.

Staff described potential next steps including a revised forecast to be distributed to commissioners within a week and recommended discussion of a truth‑in‑taxation measure, with one staff recommendation pointing to an initial truth‑in‑taxation range of $15–20 million (staff noted the initial decision sets a ceiling for subsequent actions for the 2025 tax year). Rod Mann said the county should consider smaller, more frequent adjustments rather than large, infrequent increases.

What happens next: staff committed to incorporating commissioner feedback (including historical one‑time costs, ARPA transitions, and fund‑balance timing), producing a revised forecast, and returning to the commission for decisions about revenue options and potential truth‑in‑taxation scheduling.

Source: Presentation and Q&A at the Utah County Commission meeting, June 19 (county finance staff and commissioners).